Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-12-23 P&Z MinutesRENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION December 23, 1992 - 7:00 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers Chairman Art Graveley AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 9, 1992 4. PERSONB PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Resolution PZ 92-34: Carr's Sign Variance b. Resolution PZ 92-38: Oiler's Variance c. Resolution PZ 92-39: Gensel Conditional Use Permit 6. PLANNING a. Resolution PZ 92-36 - Ikaika S/D Preliminary Plat b. Resolution PZ 92-40 - Oilers Addition c. Resolution PZ 92-41 - Street Name Change "Cook Circle" to Roy Way 7. NEW BUSINESS ~ a. Planning Commission Training Needs Survey 8. OLD BUSINESS a. Resolution PZ 92-26: Rezone - See (Tabled for one year from 10/14/92) 9. CODE ENFORCEMENT ITEMS a. Quandt Property b. University of Alaska Property (off Beaver Loop) 10. REPORTS a. City Council b. Borough Planning c. Townsite Historic Task Force d. City Administration 11. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED 12. INFORMATION ITEMS 1. Landscape/Site Plan Memo - Council Response 13. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS 14. ADJOURNMENT RENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION. December 23, 1992 - 7:00 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers Chairman Art Graveley ***MINUTES*** 1. ROLL CALL Present: Duane Bannock, Phil Bryson, Carl Glick, Ron Goecke Art Graveley, Paul Hanson Absent (excused): Kathy Scott Also Present: Jack La Shot, City Engineer Loretta Harvey, Administrative Assistant 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Graveley noted that under Item 5c the Resolution number in the packet should be PZ 92-39 not PZ 92-38. So noted. MOTION AND VOTE: Bryson MOVED approval of agenda as amended and asked for unanimous consent. Goecke SECONDED. MOTION PASSED by UNANIMOUS CONSENT. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 9, 1992 MOTION AND VOTE: Bryson MOVED approval of agenda as amended and asked for unanimous consent. Goecke SECONDED. MOTION PASSED by UNANIMOUS CONSENT. 4. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Resolution PZ 92-34: Carr's Sign Variance PUBLIC HEARING - ***VERBATIM*** Paul Carr - my address is 6461, Reed Lane, Anchorage 99502. I'll put it down here. The request before you this evening is modified from the last presentation or request that we had made before this body. We've reduced the main reading sign. We've redesigned it and it will be reduced to 154 s.f which is in compliance with your municipal sign ordinance. So we're not asking for any variance relative to the size or the placement of that sign. What we are asking for is for a variance to put a directional entrance identification sign along the Kenai Spur highway. I assume you received a copy of my letter of December 2nd to Mr. La Shot explaining that. I would also like to clarify there's an error in that letter where I said that the sign would be 27 s.f. actually the sign as submitted to you is actually for 36 s.f., not 27. Also, as I said in this letter, we view this as a safety entrance sign. I would point out that during the plat review the driveway accesses and entrances were acceptable in plat review. They've been permitted by the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, there has been no objection in relation to the use or RENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION December 23, 1992 - Meetinq Page 2 restriction of those. We feel that it would facilitate traffic movement and a safety feature into the center, whereas people coming from either direction they know they have the alternatives, and/or the chance to lessen traffic congestion at one of the turn points. It facilitates safety all along the highway. That's basically the request, a variance for a second sign 36 s.f. in nature and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Hanson - you said that the main sign has been altered as such that it complies with the 154 s.f. I don't have, in my packet, any example of what that alteration would look like. Would you care to describe. Carr - the alteration as I understand it has been by the reduction in the height of the sign by three to four inches. Hanson - and than on the entrance sign you're requesting, the 36 s.f. entrance sign, have there been any changes to that sign besides what I have in my packet? Carr - no there have not. Hanson - If the intent of the sign is to be an entrance sign, to facilitate traffic I'd like to know why the word Carrs is larger than the word entrance? Carr - I wished I had, Mr. Chairman, I wish I had brought a visual of that. I was going to and the light got away from me. It's the typical sign, a white lit background with the colored Carr's and of the word entrance incorporated in the arrow. There standard signs that we've used in all the other centers. it appears to meet the needs, I think the shape, the diagonal of the sign adequately points it out. It's the motif and the design that's been used for years. And it seems to help work. Hanson - there's an arrow? Carr - no, not an arrow, but the configuration of the sign helps facilitate that, you know, this is the point. There was, and I don't see it on this, but there was a sign, Mr. Chairman there was a sign, that we'd utilize the entrance portion of this and an arrow outline on that. I cannot tell you that that is the way this sign is designed. I can tell you that we can make it that way. We've done it that way before. The one that comes to mind is our center on Jewell Lake in Anchorage. Hanson - well I guess my concern is that, of this 36 s.f. it looks like a very small percentage of that is being used as an entrance sign. The majority of it is being used to describe Carr's super foods, super drug, open 24 hours, which is, or should be, on your main sign. Carr - that's a comment I have no response too. Hanson - would you care to comment on my comment? KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION December 23, 1992 - Meetinq Page 3 Carrs - again I reiterate that this is what they've had in the past. It's what's been successful. It's worked I believe in years past they even ran it by DOT, Department of Transportation. And they had no objection or no comment, and I don't know that, and to be honest I can't see where they're in a position of commenting. So it may be just fine, do it. I can't respond to that. Graveley - Any other questions? Mr. Glick? Glick - By putting this entrance sign in are you attempting to establish a traffic flow that the other, where the big sign is will be the exit than? Carr - No, what we're trying to do, Mr. Chairman, excuse me, I don't see names in front of you there so I'm at a loss here. Mr. Chairman, what we're trying to do is to facilitate overall circulation and a safety feature into this so it's clearly identified so that there is another entrance. The driveway now accommodates both ingress and egress. It was, I think it is close to 36 feet in width. Now, maybe right now, when I look at it, the last time I was here and again this evening, it might be the ground is frozen, and the snow is making it look wider then it is, but that's about what I pace it off as. As I said before, the people on the Spur highway, obviously the people coming to make a right turn in, it's not much of a problem, it's basically a free right in at either entrance. It would the people wanting to make the left out or the left in and if we can help split the traffic pile up, or disperse that, over the site distance there we'll eliminate some confusion in stacking and people trying to get in and around cars. They'll have another option there. We'd like to identify that option to facilitate traffic flow. Graveley - anymore questions for Mr. Carr? Thank you sir. Carr - Thank you. Graveley - are there any other would like to speak on Resolutio at this time. Seeing none we'll Hearing and bring it back before this on the table for discussion. individuals from the public who n PZ 92-34: Carr's Sign Variance close this portion of the Public the Commission. I'd like to get Mr. Bannock? MOTION: Bannock I MOVE for approval of Resolution PZ 92-34. Goecke SECONDED. ***DISCUSSION*** Graveley - Open for discussion. Mr. Bannock? RENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION December 23, 1992 - Meetinq Page 4 Bannock (passed out copies of sign design) - I'm supporting this resolution tonight for several different reasons. First off, it has been shown me clearly how inadequate our existing sign ordinance is. The numbers of 81 s.f. and 154 s.f. seem to be purely arbitrary, no rhythm or reason. I've talked to former Mayors about these numbers where they cam from. There is no set purpose to those numbers. Even the Welcome to Kenai sign, which you have in front of you, it's on the Spur highway, exceeds the maximum size. As you will notice the sign does not include the base, nor does it include the top. It says Kenai All America City. Some people have said the sign is just too big for an All America City, but what does the biggest sign in Kenai say? Welcome to Kenai, All America City. Some people here say, everyone already know where Carr's is. Again, why do we spend thousands of dollars announcing where Kenai is? It's on every map. Weeks ago, during a work session, on the sign ordinance, the consensus was that the existing sign ordinance was fine. After all, when the need for a larger sign arose and we knew that it would, we have a variance mechanism to solve that problem. If we refuse this request, what grounds do we base it on? Is an extra 29 feet okay for the City, but 36 is not okay for this applicant? Based on the vague assumption it's just too big? Who than will qualify for a variance, if the largest facility in Kenai cannot? Why have it on the books than? We obviously have no intention of using it. Now variance should not be confused with a special favor. It is part of the law. Many good people and businesses have one. many need one. In the past few weeks I've paid closed attention to signs in Kenai and while I respect business owners who choose not to have large signs, I would hope that they could understand Carr's wishes as well. Thank you. Graveley - Thank you Mr. Bannock. This diagram that you gave us, does this particular sign have a permit or a variance on it, do you know? Bannock - I asked our secretary about that a couple of weeks ago and it's my recollection that no variance permit was ever approved. Graveley - Jack do you know? La Shot - I don't think so. Graveley - than it has none? La Shot - no. Graveley - any other discussion. The other prospect for signs for Carrs, and I go along with what Mr. Bannock has stated and I want to drive home another fact that I don't want people to overlook. Carr's sits back off the road. Yes, everybody on the Kenai Peninsula probably knows where Carrs is, however, looking at the plat of that area and the proposed possibilities of Pad D, Pad C, and Pad B Carrs can, sometime down the road, be obscured by other buildings out along the frontage, the main highway. So keep that in mind too when you're making your decision. Mr. Glick? RENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION December 23, 1992 - Meeting Page 5 ~ Glick - well I've given this a lot of thought over the last month and a half that we've been looking at this. A couple things come to mind. First of all, we have had numerous objections to giving a variance, only one letter that I recall was a non-objection. We've had quit a few people come and testify from the Chamber and businesses around the city that object to it. Also think about where Carrs was located before. They had one sign that wasn't as exposed as the new one here would be, because of NBA's bank building and the trees there. It was kinda hidden from either direction, also there were no entrance signs into that mall and yet there were three entrances off the main highway, one off Willow and one off Main Street Loop, none of those had entrance signs. Maybe I wouldn't be so opposed to this if it just said entrance even, but it's also an advertising sign as well. In light of all that I guess I have a hard time going along with this. The other thing I think I need to talk about here is that I agree with Duane that it's not right for the City to put in a sign that doesn't meet our sign ordinance than turn down private businesses, but that's in the past, it's been done and we can't change it. Graveley - further discussion? Bryson - for the record, I will be abstaining from this item due to conflict. Graveley - Mr. Bannock. Bannock - Mr. Chairman I would like to make an amendment to the original motion. I would like to move that this permit be granted based on two things. Number one the revocation of their existing sign permit and number two the removal in full of the old sign at the old Carr's location. Graveley - does that concur with Mr. Goecke who made the second. Goecke - Yes. Graveley - further discussion? Mr. Bryson. Bryson - I'd like to make a statement this is directly related to his amendment, it's not in reference to the proposal. I believe it's on a different site and it's a different business. It may be the same corporate owner but it's a different parcel and it's conforming at this time and I don't see how you can tie one to the other. Graveley - Mr. Bannock do you wish to reconsider. Bannock - not really because I don't personally, even though I totally agree with Mr. Bryson, I don't see why, because in the ~ people that I talked too, the reason I brought this up, is in the people that I talked to in the last couple of weeks, two people have brought that to my attention. It's an ugly sign, that is an ugly sign there is no way anybody can get around that. it's an ugly sign that advertises an empty building. And it needs to go RENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION December 23, 1992 - Meetinq Page 6 ~ away. And I think that would be a good encouragement for Carrs to make it go away a little quicker than just removing the panels out of it. So although I believe that Mr. Bryson might be totally correct in that they wouldn't have to I would like to make them have to, if I can do that. Graveley - further discussion? Seeing none, we'll call for question. This is on Resolution PZ 92-34 as amended by Duane Bannock. Glick - We're voting on the amendment or on the main motion? Graveley - on the amendment. The amendment that Mr. Bannock stated, so that we're all correct is: 1) to remove the old existing sign in front of the old Carrs building; and . What was the other part Mr. Bannock? Bannock - to revoke the sign permit for Carr's previous permit. There may not be one there, its's been there a long time. A permit that is. Graveley - is that correct? Okay. VOTE - AMENDMENT: Bannock: Yes Glick: Yes Graveley: Yes Goecke: Yes Hanson: Yes Bryson: Abstain MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ONE ABSTENTION. Graveley - now we will vote on the main motion which is the Sign Variance as in your packet. VOTE - MAIN MOTION: Bannock: Yes Glick: No Graveley: Yes Goecke: Yes Hanson: No Bryson: Abstain MOTION FAILS. ONE ABSTENTION. Graveley - Motion passes, Mr. Carr, if you will . Glick - point of order, I don't think that motion passed. Graveley - you're right, it doesn't have a quorum. Motion fails. Mr. Carr you may appeal to the City Council, is that correct Mr. Smalley? Smalley - yes, you'll have to check with the secretary to get the procedures and the process. To try to get it on our next Council agenda it would have to be in by next . Harvey - I think next Wednesday, because we have short work weeks, due to the holidays. Carr - and when would that meeting be? RENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION December 23, 1992 - Meeting Page 7 ~ Smalley - that would be the 6th of January. Carr - Mr. Chairman if I would have the appeal in by next Wednesday in theory, the more quickly it would make the agenda? Smalley - Correct, the two things you may wish to appeal are the amendment, well of course that failed. The amendment passed, but the main motion failed. So it would be just the main motion. Carr - thank you very much for your time, Mr. Chairman if I may. you may not like this, but from my point of view, I'm glad to see that I'm not the only thing on the agenda to bring you out for the meeting a couple of days before Christmas. ***END VERBATIM*** b. Resolution PZ 92-38: Oiler's Variance La Shot - reported that the building on lot 5B was in the process of being demolished. The building on lot 5A would be on the property line. The new lot 5B would be smaller than the minimum 7200 s.f. The variance would be for a relaxation of minimum lot size for Lot 5B, and the encroachment is required for the building to remain in the setbacks in Lot 5A. La Shot recommended approval as it would improve the situation in both instances. Graveley - opened the meeting to the Public Hearing portion. ***PUBLIC HEARING - VERBATIM*** Coral W. Seymour - 1101 First Street, Kenai, Alaska. Basically the only reason we are here to answer any questions that might come up. The reason that we have applied for this varaiance is so that the present owner of lot B that was referred too, will go ahead and he has consented to the changes as they have been presented so we can go ahead and buy the building. We've exchanged property where the present building setting on his prior property as it is indicated from the earlier survey. So if any of you have any questions we'd be glad to answer them. Hanson - which lot do you own, 5A or 5B? Seymour - we don't own either one of them. We're trying to buy Lot 5 A. Hanson - And both the owners of Lot 5A and 5B agree with this plat. Seymour - both owners agreed to the changes as presented, so the sale can be expediated. Graveley - are there any persons who would like to speak on this item at this time? ***END VERBATIM*** RENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION December 23, 1992 - Meetinq Page 8 ~ MOTION AND VOTE: Glick MOVED approval of Resolution PZ 92-38. Bryson SECONDED. Bannock: Yes Glick: Yes Hanson: Yes Bryson: Yes MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Graveley: Yes Goecke: Yes c. Resolution PZ 92-39: Gensel Conditional Use Permit La Shot - reported that this facility would be on City leased land. The Commission had approved the lease at a previous meeting. The applicant was in attendance to answer Commission questions. Graveley - opened the public hearing. Seeing no one who wished to testify the item was brought back to the Commission. MOTION AND VOTE: Bryson MOVED approval of Resolution PZ 92-38. Glick SECONDED. Bannock: Yes Glick: Yes Hanson: Yes Bryson: Yes MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Graveley: Yes Goecke: Yes 6. PLANNING a. Resolution PZ 92-36 - Ikaika S/D Preliminary Plat This item had been carried forward from the previous meeting due to the lack of a quorum. MOTION: Glick MOVED approval of Resolution PZ 92-36: Ikaika Subdivision. Hanson SECONDED. La Shot reported that this was a plat that split one lot into two smaller lots. Any existing buildings should be shown on the plat before finalized. Graveley asked if the reduced lots would be within the minimum lot size for this area. La Shot said both lots would be. VOTE: j Bannock: Yes Glick: Yes Graveley: Yes Goecke: Yes Hanson: Yes Bryson: Abstain MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ONE ABSTENTION. KENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION December 23, 1992 - Meetinq Page 9 b. Resolution PZ 92-40 - Oilers Addition La Shot explained this would be the plat which results from the approval of the variance/encroachment of the Oilers Building, Resolution PZ 92-38. The building would actually be on the lot line. MOTION: Hanson MOVED approval of Resolution PZ 92-40: Oilers Addition. Glick SECONDED. c. Resolution PZ 92-41 - Street Name Change "Cook Circle" to Roy Way MOTION AND VOTE: Goecke MOVED approval of Resolution PZ 92-38. Glick SECONDED. Bannock: Yes Glick: Yes Hanson: Yes Bryson: Yes Graveley: Yes Goecke: Yes MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Planning Commission Training Needs Survey Hanson and Glick expressed interest in attending this training session and prioritized the subjects they would like included in the session. 8. OLD BUSINESS a. Resolution PZ 92-26: Rezone - See (Tabled for one year from 10/14/92) 9. CODE ENFORCEMENT ITEMS a. Quandt Property b. University of Alaska Property (off Beaver Loop) La Shot reported that some clean-up has begun on this property. This situation will continue to be monitored by Administration. 10. REPORTS a. City Council Smalley reported on agenda items including: A decision has been reached by the court on the Inlet Woods case. j The City has been awarded 1.3 mil. The case will probably be appealed. The City Attorney did an excellent job representing the City. RENAI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION December 23, 1992 - Meetinq Page 10 The Council had discussed giving the Landscaping Review Board duties back to Planning and Zoning. The City Attorney is in the process of redrafting that portion of the code to facilitate this. b. Borough Planning Bryson reported that Hollier and Ikaika Subdivisions had been reviewed and approved at the Borough level. The Corps of Engineers recently denied the placement of buoys in the Kenai River. This is the first time such a request has been denied. c. Townsite Historic Task Force Goecke reported that a draft ordinance had been given to the City Attorney and Administration for review. d. City Administration La Shot reported that he and the City Attorney had begun review of the TSH Draft Ordinance and thought that the Task Force had done a good job on this initial draft. 11. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED 12. INFORMATION ITEMS 13. COMMISSION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS Bannock - Mr. Chairman, pursuant to KMC 14.20.220 Section (d) I would like to file a complaint regarding the City of Kenai sign located in Baron Park Subdivision based on non-compliance of size. Graveley regretfully informed the Commission that due to added job responsibilities he would have to resign from the Board. He gave a letter of resignation to Harvey and asked her to submit it to the City Clerk. Smalley thanked Graveley for his dedication to the Planning and Zoning and the City of Kenai. The Commission concurred. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, orett Har y, Transcribing Secretary l PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1992 DATE : /Z ~ 3 9 Y'~ °~( v ,~ ~~ ` ~ ~~ ~ ~ y o Duane Bannock ~ ~ Carl Glick X ~ ) Art Gravele ~ Ron Goecke ' ~ i Kath Scott Phil Br son ry Councilman Hal Smalle TO DO LIST: __---- NOTES: